Legal Opinion

Donnelly v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 27, 1890PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

This is an action for running down and injuring the plaintiff while crossing the defendant’s track. At the point in question, a public road came down to the defendant’s station on the west side of the track. On the east side were the Merrimac Chemical Works, surrounded by a fence, in which, opposite the *211road, was a gate with a lock, and marked “No Admittance.” The chemical company maintained a crossing between the gate and the road for the convenience of its own business, by the license of the defendant. We must take it that both the defendant and the plaintiff knew of the sign on the gate.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Reardon v. ThompsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  2. Mayo v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  3. Wright v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
  4. Hanks v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  5. Fletcher v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Stevens v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  2. Johanson v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
  3. Lundergan v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  4. Tyler v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  5. Chase v. Maine Central RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API